I think that people were arguing that there could have been a few prominent minority characters or actors in the cast. Personally, I don't have that complaint, but others do.

Nobody has that complaint. Nobody felt distracted by lack of minorities representation, which can be found in many movies anyways, because that doesn't affect one single thing. Unless it was a theme in the movie. This is simply not having anything else to complain about.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. As such, it's not really worth arguing
about which film is better because ultimately, people like one or the other
due to personal taste and aren't going to change their minds based
on a rational argument.

I appreciate that it won't change your mind, and if you enjoyed SR,
good on you, because it meant you didn't feel like I did walking out of
it ( I felt like asking for a refund).

Now here's why I hold this particular view.

I saw Superman: The movie, back in 1978, as a little kid. I remember the feeling walking out of the cinema from that one, I felt like I could fly. Other than Star Wars, SM TM was the greatest movie of my childhood.

I saw Superman returns......which bored the **** out of me. Routh's Superman had none of Reeve's wit or charm, he sort of floated around looking sad rather than super. The story dragged....a lot. Spacey's Luthor was annoying, rather than sinister (or funny, as Hackman's was). Worst of all was Superman's stupidity. The guy landed on the kryptonite island and then was surprised when Luthor and his thugs kicked the **** out of him.

There was nothing new or interesting about this film, because Singer just
re-hashed all the old elements of the Reeve films (he saves a plane, he lifts up a continent, have we seen that before, oh yeah, it was called Superman the movie) without putting any kind of new spin on them.
(love or hate MOS, at least Snyder/Goyer/Nolan had the balls to take the character in the new direction ). I know Singer gets a lot of hype, but I think he went for , reverential (as in reverence to the Reeve films) but it just came off as boring. Why, because those old films had a crucial element that SR didn't have, Reeve. Without Reeve, a Reeve-ish Superman film just didn't work. He was simply brilliant as Superman. He was funny, and charming and likeable, and could seamlessly make the Superman to Clark transition. As an audience we cared about him.

Routh's Superman, well I just wanted him to fly back out to space, sorry Lois the world didn't need his kind of Superman after all.

Now onto MOS. That feeling I had when I walked out of SMTM as an 8 year old, I had the same feeling 35 years later, walking out of MOS. Sure it wasn't Reeve, but it was a different Superman for a different time.

The Krypton sequence was suitably epic, and it really did look like a dying planet -Russell Crowe was a more than worthy successor to Brando as Jor-El.

The flashbacks really set up the character as someone we could care about.

My favourite scene "You're the answer son" gave the film it's heart,
something that was lacking in last year's Avengers. Sure the Avengers was flashy, and glib but not a lot of heart.

Diane Lane was a big part of the film's heart. Her scenes with Kid Clark, and adult Clark are a first (we've never really seen much of Ma Kent on screen). She was the humanizing element. after destroying downtown Smallville fighting other Kryptonians, what does Clark do first ? He comes back to check on his mom (even before Lois ).

I can see people's point about Pa Kent's death, but then that's a story point, the contrast between the two fathers and their views on what Clark could/should do with his abilities.

Lois Lane: Amy Adams was an improvement on Kate Bosworth, who was an improvement on Margot Kidder. For a change I actually liked Lois Lane
and found her believable - mostly because the solved the central problem of Lois Lane, that a clever, resourceful investigative journalist is fooled by a pair of glasses. I just really liked that she always calls him Clark.

Anyway, the central story isn't a new one, but its one that always works. The quest for identity. SMTM covered a little of it, but MOS really took us through that journey in Kal-El's footsteps.

Oh yeah, and in MOS, Superman kicks ass (I can only remember Reeve throwing a couple of punches, even in Superman II, and Routh.....well, you know). People criticize the carnage, but this was a new take on Superman, and its creators dared to show the kind of destruction that would result from beings like this doing battle downtown.

Superman killing Zod.... that's been debated and discussed ad naseum.
Suffice it to say, I thought in the context of the film, it worked.

All in all, it was a Superman for the 21st century (a Bud drinking, Football watching, beard-growing Superman). It might not be as light as the Reeve films, but we live in darker times. Despite it not being SMTM, I felt exactly the same elation coming out of the film, and that alone is enough
to make MOS the equal of SMTM, and far superior to SR.

I wonder if SR would have been better if Henry was in the role? I ask because you said a Reeve's type Superman movie can't work without Reeve himself. That makes a lot of sense, but also Brandon is not that good of an actor, he doesn't put much personality in his characters and Reeve put so much into his one Superman role in 78, not even counting the other movies.

I wonder if SR would have been better if Henry was in the role? I ask because you said a Reeve's type Superman movie can't work without Reeve himself. That makes a lot of sense, but also Brandon is not that good of an actor, he doesn't put much personality in his characters and Reeve put so much into his one Superman role in 78, not even counting the other movies.

I wonder if SR would have been better if Henry was in the role? I ask because you said a Reeve's type Superman movie can't work without Reeve himself. That makes a lot of sense, but also Brandon is not that good of an actor, he doesn't put much personality in his characters and Reeve put so much into his one Superman role in 78, not even counting the other movies.

That's a good point ! I'm really not sure. I think that SR suffered from story problems as well as a lacklustre performance from Brandon Routh. Maybe Henry could have improved the character, as he is a better actor -but SR's flaws, in my opinion went way past just the main character. The film just doesn't give him much to do, other than float around looking thoughtful, and a bit sad. It was such a forgettable film, I mean, I remember Superman III, and it was pretty crappy, but more memorable than SR.

However, I can say that Brandon Routh would have been disastrous if cast
in Man of Steel.

What was really needed was a new direction for Superman films, and with Snyder and co, we got that in spades. It's more that the Reeve films were a product of their times. I actually thought the concept behind Superman IV,
was a great one (I remember the cold war), just really poorly executed.

However, Snyder and the gang got the feel of this one right. My wife commented that Superman(Cavill) frowns a lot. This is true, but that's a
function of the world he inhabits being a lot grimmer than the world of
Reeve's Superman. In that sense, a Reeve -flavoured (and really I should Say Richard Donner /Salkind flavoured) Superman film wouldn't work today,
even with Reeve in it. Those films are a tribute to their times, we look back
at them and smile, but if they were intended to be current, they would
look very out of place.

Maybe if the world is a happier place in 50 years or so, we'll see lighter, fluffier Superman films again. Who knows. Glad you enjoyed MOS. Peace.

That's a good point ! I'm really not sure. I think that SR suffered from story problems as well as a lacklustre performance from Brandon Routh. Maybe Henry could have improved the character, as he is a better actor -but SR's flaws, in my opinion went way past just the main character. The film just doesn't give him much to do, other than float around looking thoughtful, and a bit sad. It was such a forgettable film, I mean, I remember Superman III, and it was pretty crappy, but more memorable than SR.

However, I can say that Brandon Routh would have been disastrous if cast
in Man of Steel.

What was really needed was a new direction for Superman films, and with Snyder and co, we got that in spades. It's more that the Reeve films were a product of their times. I actually thought the concept behind Superman IV,
was a great one (I remember the cold war), just really poorly executed.

However, Snyder and the gang got the feel of this one right. My wife commented that Superman(Cavill) frowns a lot. This is true, but that's a
function of the world he inhabits being a lot grimmer than the world of
Reeve's Superman. In that sense, a Reeve -flavoured (and really I should Say Richard Donner /Salkind flavoured) Superman film wouldn't work today,
even with Reeve in it. Those films are a tribute to their times, we look back
at them and smile, but if they were intended to be current, they would
look very out of place.

Maybe if the world is a happier place in 50 years or so, we'll see lighter, fluffier Superman films again. Who knows. Glad you enjoyed MOS. Peace.

If SR is a forgettable movie, you won't dislike it to this extent.
I think it is more like you wanna forget SR so badly, but it is so strong n unforgetable.

If SR is a forgettable movie, you won't dislike it to this extent.
I think it is more like you wanna forget SR so badly, but it is so strong n unforgetable.

That's a fair comment. It's wrong for me to say it's forgettable when
clearly I haven't forgotten it at all. It's more like, I wish I could forget it.

It's like Highlander 2,
I remember going to see that, and people said "don't see it, it'll ruin
the first movie for you." and I say "No way, how could that happen."
then I made the mistake of seeing, and regretted it ever since.
My only consolation is that it only cost $2, because that's how much
movies cost back then.

Anyway, SR cost me more than $2, and I guess I do remember it, because
it pissed me off. Perhaps what I should have said was that I wish I could
forget it. I actually enjoyed Superman 3 and 4 more than SR (and Superman
4 is an embarrassingly bad film, Reeve was the only good thing in it).

That's a fair comment. It's wrong for me to say it's forgettable when
clearly I haven't forgotten it at all. It's more like, I wish I could forget it.

It's like Highlander 2,
I remember going to see that, and people said "don't see it, it'll ruin
the first movie for you." and I say "No way, how could that happen."
then I made the mistake of seeing, and regretted it ever since.
My only consolation is that it only cost $2, because that's how much
movies cost back then.

Anyway, SR cost me more than $2, and I guess I do remember it, because
it pissed me off. Perhaps what I should have said was that I wish I could
forget it. I actually enjoyed Superman 3 and 4 more than SR (and Superman
4 is an embarrassingly bad film, Reeve was the only good thing in it).

Peace.

Btw, I don't think SR n Routh are bad. Routh has tried his best to honour the character of superman. It was the movie that lead itself to the dead end. I was surprised that none of the production crews realised n noticed that. Especially WB.

Btw, I don't think SR n Routh are bad. Routh has tried his best to honour the character of superman. It was the movie that lead itself to the dead end. I was surprised that none of the production crews realised n noticed that. Especially WB.

I wonder if SR would have been better if Henry was in the role? I ask because you said a Reeve's type Superman movie can't work without Reeve himself. That makes a lot of sense, but also Brandon is not that good of an actor, he doesn't put much personality in his characters and Reeve put so much into his one Superman role in 78, not even counting the other movies.

I don't think so. Returns had alot of issues. Brandon Routh was not one of them. The vapidly lackluster plot/story was the issue.

I wonder if SR would have been better if Henry was in the role? I ask because you said a Reeve's type Superman movie can't work without Reeve himself. That makes a lot of sense, but also Brandon is not that good of an actor, he doesn't put much personality in his characters and Reeve put so much into his one Superman role in 78, not even counting the other movies.

I don't think Henry or Reeve or even an Oscar caliber performance could have saved SR. Would have still been complete boredom all the way through. I actually thought Routh did great with what he had. The script didn't really give him much to work with in terms of personality. I also didn't think Henry infused much personality into Superman either. In both cases, I think it was the script and direction and not the actors which were at fault.

I pick Superman Returns by a mile.
I remember being a 16 year old kid excited for the first time I watching a Superman film on the big screen. I was disappointed and thought the movie was terrible. Throughout the years, as I matured I realized the movie was close to being a masterpiece. I remember thinking the movie was terrible because Superman didn’t throw a punch.

I also remember watching Batman Begins and hating it because I thought the action was underwhelming. Now its in my top 3 superhero movies, same goes for X2.

Bryan Singer made the movie he wanted to make, he was confident in making it, and watching the film it shows. This film wasn’t meant for kids or even teenagers, it was made for fans of the Reeves films, maybe even woman since the romance plays a large part.

I am not even a Superman fan, but Returns made me actually care for the character and understand his struggle. Routh I thought was an amazing Superman. He looked and sounded just like Reeves. The only difference was his Clark was more reserved and less clumsy.

I thought Singer did an awesome job in showing us just how powerful Superman is without even showing it sometimes. i loved the scene when he takes Lois for the flight, and when he returns her back to the Daily Planet Clark is just sitting there eating.

The themes Singer was using in the film I also appreciated. Father and Son, and how it all came full circle, repeating the words of his father. Also Superman/Clark being alienated and never feeling quite comfortable on earth even though he was raised there.

Returns in my opinion had better editing, some real beautiful and iconic shots and scenes, such as the plane, flying after being rescued by Lois into the Sun, Being shot in the eye, the awesome intro with Brando’s voiceover just tops everything in Man of Steel for me.

It seems this movie was really hated on by the general Audience for 2 reasons, superman doesn’t throw a punch and superman has a son. I can understand not liking for a Superman film if these are their reasons but that doesn’t make it a bad movie.

Man of Steel to me had so many problems. I thought Amy Adams was written absolutely terrible in this film. Once of the worst love interests I have seen in a Superhero film. I found the chemistry to be horrible and slightly rushed. I hated the Krypton scenes a lot as well due, to terrible dialogue and cliche action. Sure it looks cool but so does Transformers action, The Avengers etc. When people who praise this film speak about out it, I generally see and hear them talking about the action, To me at least that doesn’t make a great Superhero movie.

Clark’s father’s death was one of the worst written scenes in Superhero film history. When that scene happened, several people were laughing in my theater.

I liked Shannon as Zod, but most of his dialogue was also subpar to me. A lot of it he acts crazy and evil, and the other half he is just explaining why he’s not really a bad guy and he loves his people. His dialogue just felt too forced, and felt they were just really forcing he’s a sympathetic villain down the audience’s throats.

Henry Cavill I really liked. I don’t think his Superman was written that great, but I thought he did great with what they gave him. He looked the part and I am glad they got him to carry on the Superman legacy and I can only hope he truly shines in the sequel.

I guess what really ruined this movie were the cliches and since the audience have been begging for Superman to punch someone they just over did it in the third act. Characters like Perry White, Martha Kent, Pa Kent were really done horribly.

I couldn’t stand the scene such as when young Clark is in school and runs out scared locking himself in the room. I thought that scene was horribly done. Cliche after cliche. Clark hearing one of the kids thinking he’s a freak, His mother getting to the school in what seemed like 30 seconds. Most of the dialogue just reminded me of the Raimi spider flicks in how preachy they were. For a movie trying to be more real I thought it just didn’t fit. With Superman Returns the campy jokes and not taking itself serious sometimes really works in its world because its following the Donner films.

I have a lot more to say thats negative about Man of Steel but I think I wrote enough. Whoever loved this movie I am happy for you. I am glad you got the Superman film you wanted, as I did with Superman Returns. I thought it was a perfect ending to the first 2 Donner films.

Last thing, for the people who keep saying Superman was terrible and it doesn’t mean anything that the critics liked, because the General Audience is all that matters which is why it didn’t get a sequel are absolutely wrong. The movie was supposed to have a sequel, and you can even find some doomsday sketches online from the sequel. It didn’t get made because Singer was too busy doing other things in his career and WB got tired of waiting for the sequel to be made.

Wow I compel rely disagree abou the personality of the two Superman characters in each flick. Brandon's superman was bored and monotone and lackluster. Henry's Superman was quite and depressed but atleast there were character traits even if you don't like them. He also became more engaging as the movie went on and he was no longer trying to hide. I also feel Henry had better non verbal communication than Brandon; neither Clark or Superman talked much but Henry at least showed more with his eyes face and body. Perhaps the cause of this was because Brandon was wearing contacts.

Wow I compel rely disagree abou the personality of the two Superman characters in each flick. Brandon's superman was bored and monotone and lackluster. Henry's Superman was quite and depressed but atleast there were character traits even if you don't like them. He also became more engaging as the movie went on and he was no longer trying to hide. I also feel Henry had better non verbal communication than Brandon; neither Clark or Superman talked much but Henry at least showed more with his eyes face and body. Perhaps the cause of this was because Brandon was wearing contacts.

Totally with you there dude ! Henry didn't have to talk that much, but his frowns and body language spoke volumes more than Routh's -they might as well have dressed up a store mannikin in the superman costume.

Cavill's Superman grunted and groaned and bellowed whenever he made a strenuous effort ( holding up the collapsing oil rig, smashing Zod through the grain silos, smashing into Faora, flying up the gravity beam, the list goes on).
He was quite an emotional Superman, and I thought he did a great job of communicating without long speeches - Superman's all about deeds not words.

Also, I feel compelled to weigh in on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pturtle

I guess what really ruined this movie were the cliches and since the audience have been begging for Superman to punch someone they just over did it in the third act. .

Dude, glad you enjoyed Superman returns ( I hated it) because at least someone went home happy from that film.

However, I have a small issue with your criticism of MOS involving too much of Superman punching people, which a few other people have raised as
well.

Have you read many Superman comics ? Generally, it's about a guy who protects humanity from threats on a massive scale. And when Brainiac, or Darkseid or Doomsday show up, ready to obliterate the Earth, what's Superman's primary method of removing the threat ? He punches them. When Bizarro or Metallo get out of line and start
tearing up Metropolis, POW ! It's punching time. If Mongul shows up and
pulls some of that **** he did in coast city, what does Supes do ?
BAM ! he punches the bejeezus out of that big yellow sucker.

I kind of lost touch with Superman for a while (being a big fan of John Byrne's work back in the 80's) so last week I had a read of Superman, Brainiac by Geoff Johns ( yo Goyer, some great source material here for a movie !) anyway, when Brainiac threatens Earth, and Kandor and is just generally
being a big green pratt, what does Supes do ? POW ! He punches the hell
out of Brainiac, problem solved, planet saved. Good to see that things haven't changed that much in nearly 30 years - punching is still very much a feature of Superman comics.

You're right, it isn't a very sophisticated way of doing things, but boy it's quite satisfying - I wish Supes had punched Zod a few more times, he certainly had it coming.

Again, glad you enjoyed Superman returns, but that version of Superman didn't work for me at all. I thought that Singer emasculated the Man of Steel
(Superman is stupid enough to land on an Island made of Kryptonite ? Come on !) The worst thing about the film, is that Singer didn't have the guts to put his own stamp on the film - he just made it as a love letter to Richard Donner and Chris Reeve. Don't get me wrong, I loved those films, even the really **** ones, but Singer tried to make a Donner/Reeve film without either of them, and it came off as a sham of a travesty of a pale imitation. Time had moved on, and Superman needed to as well. At least Snyder and the gang had the balls to reinterpret the character, keeping all the traditional elements but sharpening them up to give Supes a 21st century feel.

This is not at all to criticize your opinion, I see from your post that a lot of the stuff I hated, was actually stuff that worked for you in SR. That's cool,
just venting my spleen. Hope you enjoy the next Superman film as
much as you enjoyed SR.

Totally with you there dude ! Henry didn't have to talk that much, but his frowns and body language spoke volumes more than Routh's -they might as well have dressed up a store mannikin in the superman costume.

Cavill's Superman grunted and groaned and bellowed whenever he made a strenuous effort ( holding up the collapsing oil rig, smashing Zod through the grain silos, smashing into Faora, flying up the gravity beam, the list goes on).
He was quite an emotional Superman, and I thought he did a great job of communicating without long speeches - Superman's all about deeds not words.

Also, I feel compelled to weigh in on this:

Dude, glad you enjoyed Superman returns ( I hated it) because at least someone went home happy from that film.

However, I have a small issue with your criticism of MOS involving too much of Superman punching people, which a few other people have raised as
well.

Have you read many Superman comics ? Generally, it's about a guy who protects humanity from threats on a massive scale. And when Brainiac, or Darkseid or Doomsday show up, ready to obliterate the Earth, what's Superman's primary method of removing the threat ? He punches them. When Bizarro or Metallo get out of line and start
tearing up Metropolis, POW ! It's punching time. If Mongul shows up and
pulls some of that **** he did in coast city, what does Supes do ?
BAM ! he punches the bejeezus out of that big yellow sucker.

I kind of lost touch with Superman for a while (being a big fan of John Byrne's work back in the 80's) so last week I had a read of Superman, Brainiac by Geoff Johns ( yo Goyer, some great source material here for a movie !) anyway, when Brainiac threatens Earth, and Kandor and is just generally
being a big green pratt, what does Supes do ? POW ! He punches the hell
out of Brainiac, problem solved, planet saved. Good to see that things haven't changed that much in nearly 30 years - punching is still very much a feature of Superman comics.

You're right, it isn't a very sophisticated way of doing things, but boy it's quite satisfying - I wish Supes had punched Zod a few more times, he certainly had it coming.

Again, glad you enjoyed Superman returns, but that version of Superman didn't work for me at all. I thought that Singer emasculated the Man of Steel
(Superman is stupid enough to land on an Island made of Kryptonite ? Come on !) The worst thing about the film, is that Singer didn't have the guts to put his own stamp on the film - he just made it as a love letter to Richard Donner and Chris Reeve. Don't get me wrong, I loved those films, even the really **** ones, but Singer tried to make a Donner/Reeve film without either of them, and it came off as a sham of a travesty of a pale imitation. Time had moved on, and Superman needed to as well. At least Snyder and the gang had the balls to reinterpret the character, keeping all the traditional elements but sharpening them up to give Supes a 21st century feel.

This is not at all to criticize your opinion, I see from your post that a lot of the stuff I hated, was actually stuff that worked for you in SR. That's cool,
just venting my spleen. Hope you enjoy the next Superman film as
much as you enjoyed SR.

Peace.

For me, I feel that Superman Returns was the actual gutsy movie that was made. It was a continuation and love letter to the Reeve/Donner flicks but it also a movie that was made unlike most Superhero movies. It has a lot of themes and really was made not to show off the hero’s power but his character. And I guess a lot of what made the movie for me was the directing, the movie has some really awesome beautiful shots.

But I am not a Superman fan. I don’t read his comics and and to be honest, I wasn’t a fan of Returns either until recently I gave it a shot after watching the Reeve films, and Man of Steel. I guess because I am not a fan I am happy with the liberties they took with the character. Its kind of the same for the Dark Knight trilogy, I read a few of his comics growing up, but when I watch a movie I judge the movie itself. I don’t compare it to the comics much at all.

I am a huge X-Men fan and most of the hardcore fans hated first class because it strayed so far away from comics, I thought that movie was absolutely great (I seriously think Days of Future Past is going to be one of the best Superhero movies ever).

I don’t mind Superman breaking necks in Man of Steel, and not saving people, that doesn’t bother me, but I think the last half really was just way too much action. Where the third act in Superman Returns you have some real awe-inspiring things going on.

My thing with Returns is, if you’re a Superman fan and you were expecting to see something else then what was made, I can understand the frustration, because when I was a 16 year old kid I expected the same. I thought I was going to see a visually stunning awesome action film. Recently watching it, I was just in shock how much I enjoyed it.

Last thing, I know you said at least Man of Steel had the guts to make an original movie, but what they did wasn’t really original at all to me. This is the age of grounded, realistic, darker superhero films. It came after a successful trilogy that did the same, along with the Amazing Spiderman(not a fan but was successful). I’m glad Returns continued from Superman the movie. That origin was great and didn’t need to be remade. I think a fair amount of superhero films could do great if they were filmed with a bit of a retro style. Like the recent Daredevil flick that got canceled was supposed to be about him in the 70’s fighting crime. It could visually be something awesome.

Just my opinion, I didn’t think Man of Steel was a terrible film. But it just seemed real bland and soulless. I felt the cliches just didn’t work for a movie trying to be grounded. I am really hoping and praying the sequel will be great, but I would have preferred they left Batman out of the sequel. I am just scared in the directing for the sequel, I have no faith in Snyder.